Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 The water cooler, part 3
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 54

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2011 :  12:39:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
sailingsoul.....

Thanks for replying to the deletion of the reply that would have been deleted if a reply had not made you not delete what you had earlier replied.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2011 :  12:49:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Is it anything more than normal climate changing?
Yes.
If it is and we somehow are the cause of it wouldn't that be just a natural occurence too?
If so, then all artificial things are natural, and the words lose all meaning.
Seeing as we are all products of the Earth and we will all eventually return the the Earth what makes us so special that we have all of this power?
It's only the power of language, that we have words that distinguish man-made things from not-man-made things. The universe certainly doesn't give a damn.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2011 :  16:20:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.


Is it anything more than normal climate changing?


Yes.


Opinion.

If it is and we somehow are the cause of it wouldn't that be just a natural occurence too?


If so, then all artificial things are natural, and the words lose all meaning.


Maybe the word “artificial” does have no meaning


Seeing as we are all products of the Earth and we will all eventually return the the Earth what makes us so special that we have all of this power?


It's only the power of language, that we have words that distinguish man-made things from not-man-made things. The universe certainly doesn't give a damn.


What/who has the athority to say that all, or even some, man-made things are not natural?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2011 :  18:50:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Opinion.
Since an opinion is something the person offering it thinks is true, thanks for stating the obvious.
Maybe the word “artificial” does have no meaning
Do you understand how language works?
What/who has the athority to say that all, or even some, man-made things are not natural?
Who/what has the authority to say that "bible" isn't a synonym for "lie-filled shit pie?"

Words have meanings. Those meanings may change over time, but the meaning of "artificial" hasn't shifted so far in the last few years to be synonymous with "natural," has it?

If you simply want to insist that "artificial" and "natural" mean the same thing, then you'll be misunderstood by the vast majority of people and labeled an idiot by some, since few of them will be privy to your private dictionary.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  06:25:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
Words have meanings. Those meanings may change over time, but the meaning of "artificial" hasn't shifted so far in the last few years to be synonymous with "natural," has it?


I think that the synonym "unnatural" should be disassociated with the word "artificial" because this portion of the definition is incorrect.
artificial: not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes


I agree that artificial things are man-made but they certainly are not unnatural. We are made of star stuff just like everything else in the universe. We are a part of nature. Just because we assemble other things that are also made of star stuff for our use does not make them unnatural. The fact that we assemble things is just an example of the natural universe working.

We aren't so special that anything we do should not be considered natural.

I think I will start a campaign to erase the word "unnatural" from our language. It is meaningless.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  07:04:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



Since an opinion is something the person offering it thinks is true, thanks for stating the obvious.

You are welcome.

Maybe the word “artificial” does have no meaning
Do you understand how language works?

Yes I do, but to my point. Why is anything, or somethings, that man does labeled as un-natural or artificial? When a beaver builds a dam and creates a lake we do not say that this was un-natural or artificial. When a monkey fashions a stick into a tool we do not say that this was un-natural of artificial. When a bull elk shreds a tree during the rut we do not say that the now vacant land was created un-naturally or artificially. When a volcano spews tons of carbon into the atmosphere we do not say that this was un-natural or artificial.

So if we all are just random byproducts of mother earth why is it that when man builds a dam, which creates a lake, we call it artificial? So if we all are just random byproducts of mother earth why is that when man crafts a tool or a machine to perform a task we say that this is artificial? So if we all are just random byproducts of mother earth why is that when man cuts down a tree we say the now vacant land was created un-naturally? So if we all are just random byproducts of mother earth why is that when man spews tons of carbon into the atmosphere this is un-natural?

Why do we pick out man and specialize him above all the other random byproducts of mother earth by declaring his actions alone as un-natural and/or artificial? Is it simply because man is currently the most intellectually advanced byproduct of mother earth? If so then if man were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow would the 2nd most intelligent byproduct of mother earth now be performing un-natural and artificial actions? Why is is that man is deemed worthy of having his actions being declared un-natural or artificial?


What/who has the authority to say that all, or even some, man-made things are not natural?
Who/what has the authority to say that "bible" isn't a synonym for "lie-filled shit pie?"

Well I could offer you my opinion but how did we go from MMGW and it's natural or un-natural causes to the Bible?


Words have meanings. Those meanings may change over time, but the meaning of "artificial" hasn't shifted so far in the last few years to be synonymous with "natural," has it?

If you simply want to insist that "artificial" and "natural" mean the same thing, then you'll be misunderstood by the vast majority of people and labeled an idiot by some, since few of them will be privy to your private dictionary.

What I am saying is that maybe our meaning given to the word "artificial" or "un-natural" is just a made up figment of our imagination? Again, why are some or all of man's actions deemed un-natural or artificial if we are all just random byproducts of mother earth? Simply because we currently have the most intellect? If not then why is that we set ourselves apart from the rest of mother earth's creation by saying that our actions are un-natural or artificial?




"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  08:47:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
After thinking about it a little bit I suppose if you use the definition of artificial as "human contrived" then you could say that a man made pond is an artificial pond but a pond made by a beaver is not artificial. So by saying it is artificial all you are doing is saying that the random byproduct of nature responsible for the pond, in this case, was man.

But then when you look at the definition for natural:

a : being in accordance with or determined by nature


We see that anything in accordance with or determined by nature is natural. When I look at the definition for nature we get an odd and vague meaning

a : a creative and controlling force in the universe


This sounds more like Star Wars. Some mystic controlling force that is creative and controlling in the universe.

So by definition I can't say the beaver created pond is artificial because it was not humanly contrived, but is it natural?

Well was the beaver's pond in accordance with or determined by nature? If nature created the beaver then the actions of the beaver sure seem natural. How could the mystic force of nature create a beaver and then his actions be deemed as unnatural? But yet I could replace beaver with man and the point still applies. Nature created man and so if man makes a pond this is as natural as the beaver making a pond.

One might say the man made pond is unnatural because it was created using intelligence and not by random acts of the force of nature. Fair enough but then the beaver pond is now unnatural as well.

If one still insists that the beaver pond is natural while the man made pond is unnatural then it must be explained why the actions of man our distinct from the actions of the beaver.

If both the beaver and man's existence were in accordance with or determined by nature, which we know they were or man and/or beavers would not be in existence otherwise, then we must conclude that the actions of man and beaver are both equally as natural. So therefore we must conclude that man putting carbon into the atmosphere is as natural of an occurrence is that of a beaver building a dam.

So in all reality, and going by the definitions, a man made pond can be called artificial (human contrived) and natural (in accordance with nature) at the same time and both are correct.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/04/2011 10:10:57
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  10:56:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Arrgh. How did the topic of global warming get diverted into argument about semantics. The simple fact is if humans are causing global warming (and they are - the only scientists who disagree with this are in the employ of the energy companies) then we can take measures to prevent further problems or reverse it.

the problem is the whole issue has become politicized because nobody wants to change consumption habits and energy sources.

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1215 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  11:04:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by alienist

Arrgh. How did the topic of global warming get diverted into argument about semantics. The simple fact is if humans are causing global warming (and they are - the only scientists who disagree with this are in the employ of the energy companies) then we can take measures to prevent further problems or reverse it.

the problem is the whole issue has become politicized because nobody wants to change consumption habits and energy sources.


almost every debate on this site ends up being an argument about semantics.

Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  11:06:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave &
Bill scott ...........

Bill scott asked:
Is it anything more than normal climate changing?
Dave responds:
Yes.
Bill scott:
If it is and we somehow are the cause of it wouldn't that be just a natural occurence too?
Dave:
If so, then all artificial things are natural, and the words lose all meaning.
Well, let's see. Both Webster and Wiki define and inextricably connect artificial with made by humans. If you label a thing artificial, you are clearly defining it as man-made.

The word natural is much more distributive, but Webster is very clear in his definitions of the word in the context we are using here:

2a: in accordance with or determined by nature : based upon the operations of the physical world.

6a : of, relating to, or concerned with nature as an object of study and research.

7 : having a specified character by nature.

13b: existing in or produced by nature: consisting of objects so existing or produced: not artificial.
Nature, in turn is defined as:
15 : a particular order of existence or of existing things that is the subject matter of art: as a : one having an unchanged as contrasted with a developed, ordered, perfected, or man-made character b : real and objective existence : the world of mind and matter external to an observer : reality as observed c : the aspect of out-of-doors (as a landscape) : natural scenery
Unless one uses only his own definitions for the meaning of words (i.e. "the Dictionary is wrong", likely one of the most onerous declarations ever made in this forum); adhering to normal reference protocol, the above definitons clearly specify that there is a basic conceptual difference between natural things and artificial things; between nature and artifact, and Dave's statement that: "If so, then all artificial things are natural, and the words lose all meaning" is correct.

Addressing Bill scott's comments - The above, in turn, suggests strongly that the authority for specifying a primal differentiation between that which is natural and that which is artifice is accepted authoritative reference. In other words, no man-made things are natural, by consensus of the proper use of the English language.
Maybe the word “artificial” does have no meaning
No maybe about it, the word "artificial" definitely does have a clear meaning.
What/who has the athority to say that all, or even some, man-made things are not natural?
The definitive authority is an accepted dictionary such as Merriam-Webster. This is not opinion, this is the best approximation of "fact" that can be found.












Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  11:20:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
bng,
You are giving Bill credit for MY thoughts! I am so offended now!

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

leoofno
Skeptic Friend

USA
346 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  11:20:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send leoofno a Private Message  Reply with Quote
My point is that cooler-than-normal weather is often used by the leaders in the global warming "skeptic" community to claim that its not happening, and that climate scientisis are a bunch of liars. Yet, they never even mention warmer-than-normal weather in a GW context. I think that displays their bias and hipocracy quite nicely.

In responce to those who say that climate scientists do the same in reverse, I say "Show me". It has been my experience when reading statements from these scientists that they almost always point out the difference between weather and climate, and state that both cold and hot weather can not be used to reach any conclusions on the validity of global warming. They WILL say that increased drought and warm weather are to be expected from GW, but that it is impossible to tell if the current weather is in any way related.

I would like to see statements from actual climate scientists (or even Al Gore) saying the extreme weather is due to GW, not some news journalist who may be more interested in generating readers than telling the truth.

"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  12:11:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck



Unless one uses only his own definitions for the meaning of words (i.e. "the Dictionary is wrong", likely one of the most onerous declarations ever made in this forum); adhering to normal reference protocol, the above definitons clearly specify that there is a basic conceptual difference between natural things and artificial things; between nature and artifact, and Dave's statement that: "If so, then all artificial things are natural, and the words lose all meaning" is correct.

I have already demonstrated that by using the dictionary definitions artificial things are natural. The only thing "artificial" does is name man as the random byproduct of nature that is responsible for a pond lets say. And natural is something within the accordance of or determined by nature, which man falls into this definition. So any action of man is natural as well. So a pond made by man is artificial (human derived) and natural (determined by nature) both at the same time.


Addressing Bill scott's comments - The above, in turn, suggests strongly that the authority for specifying a primal differentiation between that which is natural and that which is artifice is accepted authoritative reference. In other words, no man-made things are natural, by consensus of the proper use of the English language.

I just showed the contrary.


The definitive authority is an accepted dictionary such as Merriam-Webster. This is not opinion, this is the best approximation of "fact" that can be found.

Nope. According to M-W something can be natural and artificial both at the same time.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  12:13:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by leoofno

My point is that cooler-than-normal weather is often used by the leaders in the global warming "skeptic" community to claim that its not happening, and that climate scientisis are a bunch of liars. Yet, they never even mention warmer-than-normal weather in a GW context. I think that displays their bias and hipocracy quite nicely.

In responce to those who say that climate scientists do the same in reverse, I say "Show me". It has been my experience when reading statements from these scientists that they almost always point out the difference between weather and climate, and state that both cold and hot weather can not be used to reach any conclusions on the validity of global warming. They WILL say that increased drought and warm weather are to be expected from GW, but that it is impossible to tell if the current weather is in any way related.

I would like to see statements from actual climate scientists (or even Al Gore) saying the extreme weather is due to GW, not some news journalist who may be more interested in generating readers than telling the truth.




Dude that fact that you lump Al Gore in the same breath with actual scientists is laughable beyond belief. You are talking about a clown who has now cleared well over a $100 million dollars in personal income over his "the sky is falling" ramblings. The dude still flies private jets all around the world while asking all the common folks to "sacrifice". This is the Benny Hinn of the MMGW crowd.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  12:23:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by alienist




The simple fact is if humans are causing global warming (and they are

You do not know this. And the new catch phrase is climate change. That covers many more bases than does global warming. Didn't you get the memo?

- the only scientists who disagree with this are in the employ of the energy companies)

That is not true.


then we can take measures to prevent further problems or reverse it.

Bankrupting the American people with artificial astronomical energy cost is not the way to do this.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 54 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.56 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000